Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 288 (BOM)

Sampat Maruti Bamne v. State of Maharashtra

2020-02-07

RANJIT MORE, SURENDRA P.TAVADE

body2020
JUDGMENT : Ranjit More, J. 1. The present appeal is fled by the appellant/accused challenging the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.66 of 2011. By the said judgment and order, the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the appeal are as under: (A) The appellant/accused is uncle of deceased-Tanaji Bamne and he used to reside at Village Nizare, adjoining to each other, in their respective houses. The house of Sakharam Shelatkar and his cattle shed is also situated near the residence of the appellant/accused and the deceased. (B) On 01.04.2011 at about 7 to 8.00 p.m., the appellant/accused abused the wife of deceased on account of not providing cement to him. That incident was witnessed by the family-members of the deceased. At the time of occurrence of this incident, the deceased was sleeping inside the house and he was not aware about the same. (C) On the next day morning, wife of deceased narrated the incident dated 01.04.2011 to deceased-Tanaji. Thereafter, on 02.04.2011 at about 8.15 to 8.30 p.m., deceased went near the cattle shed of Sakharam Shelatkar and asked explanation from the appellant/accused about his abuses. At that time, the appellant/accused started scuffling with the deceased. PW-1/Sarika and her sister Vaishali tried to intervene, however, the appellant/accused inflicted two knife blows, one on chest and other on abdomen of the deceased. Hearing commotion, PW-2/Sakharam Shelatkar rushed on the spot and separated the appellant/accused from the deceased. Due to the assault by the appellant/accused, deceased/Tanaji sustained serious injuries, and therefore, he was taken to the City Hospital, Satara. (D) PW-1/Sarika went to the police station, Medha and lodged report (Exhibit 12) against the appellant/accused. On that basis, C.R.No.26/2011 was registered initially for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Deceased, however, succumbed to his injuries, and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was converted into offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. (E) Dead body of deceased-Tanaji was referred to the postmortem examination. Dr. Deceased, however, succumbed to his injuries, and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was converted into offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. (E) Dead body of deceased-Tanaji was referred to the postmortem examination. Dr. C.D. Karanjkar/PW-5 performed postmortem examination and issued postmortem report (Exhibit 20). Spot panchnama (Exhibit 15) was prepared. The appellant/accused was arrested and on 3.4.2011 when he was in police custody, as per disclosure statement (Exhibit 17) knife (Article 5) and blood stained clothes (Articles 6 and 7) of the appellant/accused were seized from his possession. (F) The offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC being exclusively triable by Court of sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. (G) The appellant/accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellant/accused, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (H) Defence of the appellant/accused is that at the time of occurrence of the alleged incident, deceased-Tanaji tried to stab the appellant/accused, by knife and during that scuffle, Tanaji himself sustained injuries, which resulted into his death. (I) In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses namely PW-1/Sarika Sachin Ravale, PW-2/Sakharam Ramchandra Shelatkar, PW-3/Shrirang Gampat Pawar, PW-4/Pandurang Vitthal Shelatkar, PW-5/Dr. Chandrashekhar Dhondiram Karanjkar, PW-6/Dattatraya Raghunath Kale, Investigating Officer. The prosecution has also relied upon the report of recovery of blood stained weapon and blood stained clothes of the appellant/accused as well as the chemical analysis report. (J) The learned Sessions Judge having scrutinized the evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the charge against appellant/accused is proved and accordingly, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused and the learned APP for the Respondent-State. We have also perused the deposition and the other evidence brought on record by the prosecution. 4. PW-1/Sarika is the daughter of deceased-Tanaji Bamne. Since prior to one and half months of the incident, she had been to Nizare, Taluka Javali, Dist. Satara for delivery. She deposed that on 01.04.2011 at noon time on Friday, the appellant/accused had abused her mother as she refused to give cement to him. 4. PW-1/Sarika is the daughter of deceased-Tanaji Bamne. Since prior to one and half months of the incident, she had been to Nizare, Taluka Javali, Dist. Satara for delivery. She deposed that on 01.04.2011 at noon time on Friday, the appellant/accused had abused her mother as she refused to give cement to him. She has further deposed that in the morning of 02.04.2011, her mother told her father that the appellant/accused had abused her mother on earlier day and thereafter at about 7.00 p.m. deceased-Tanaji asked explanation from the appellant/accused as to why he had abused his wife. At about 8.15 p.m. on that day, she stated that her father went towards house and cattle shed of Sakharam Shelatkar. At that time the appellant/accused caught hold of collar of shirt of her father and inflicted knife blow on right side of chest and left side of stomach of her father. She has specifically stated that she witnessed this incident along with her mother and sister. At that time, Sakharam Shelatkar came out of his house and separated the appellant/accused from deceased-Tanaji. She has further stated that she saw the said incident in the street light and in the light from the house of Sakharam Shelatkar. She has identified knife (Article 5) and T-shirt and full pant (Articles 5 and 6) of the appellant/accused. PW-1/Sarika was cross examined in detail, however, her statements in chief are not shattered. 5. PW-2/Sakharam Ramchandra Shelatkar in his deposition has deposed that at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. on the day of incident, he heard shouts outside his house, and therefore, he rushed out of house. He saw that the appellant/accused sat on the person of Tanaji Bamne. He separated the appellant/accused from the deceased-Tanaji by pulling him. He deposed that at that time the appellant/accused had knife in his hand. He sustained injury to his middle finger of left hand with the knife at the hands of appellant/accused, when he tried to pull him aside. He also deposed that the appellant/accused had injured the deceased-Tanaji on his right side chest and left side stomach. After the said incident, the appellant/accused went to his house. At that time, he was having knife in his hand. He has specifically deposed that daughter of deceased-Tanaji, Sarika, his wife Sonabai, another daughter by name Taidi and Lata Shelatkar were present on the post of incident. After the said incident, the appellant/accused went to his house. At that time, he was having knife in his hand. He has specifically deposed that daughter of deceased-Tanaji, Sarika, his wife Sonabai, another daughter by name Taidi and Lata Shelatkar were present on the post of incident. PW-2/Sakharam Shelatkar has also identified the knife (Article 5) with which the appellant/ accused made assault on the deceased-Tanaji. 6. PW-1/Sarika is the eye-witness to the incident. Her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2/Sakharam Shelatkar. PW-1/Sarika being daughter of deceased-Tanaji and PW-2/Sakharam Shelatkar being the neighbour, are the natural witnesses, and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly believed these witnesses. 7. PW-3/Shrirang Ganpat Pawar is a panch-witness to the spot panchnama of the scene of offence. Panchnama (Exhibit 15) of the scene of offence is prepared in his presence. He has proved the said panchnama. He has also proved the specimen of soil (Articles 1 and 2). The chemical analysis report shows that the soil mixed with blood and soil without blood. Though the blood group cannot be determined, but the chemical analysis report shows that the blood is of a human. 8. PW-4/Pandurang Vitthal Shelatkar is a panch-witness to the recovery of panchmana (Exhibit 17), in which the knife used by the appellant/accused in the crime as well as his clothes were seized. He has proved the panchnama (Exhibit 18). He has stated that knife (Article 5) and clothes (Articles 6 and 7) were discovered at the instance of the appellant/accused under the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1871. 9. PW-5/Chandrashekhar Dhondiram Karanjkar is a Doctor, who has done autopsy on the body of deceased-Tanaji. He has stated that on examination he found following external injuries on the dead body of deceased-Tanaji: (1) Penetrating stab wound on right side of chest, incised wound wedge shape, near right sternal border, vertical direction, 7 cms above nipple level, length of the injury was 6 cms and breadth 3 cms in midline, depth of injury was 5 cms. Cut end of the rib were seen through the wound. Direction of the wound was downward and backward. Margins of the wound were sharp edges inverted on right side. sharp, edges inverted on right side. Cut end of the rib were seen through the wound. Direction of the wound was downward and backward. Margins of the wound were sharp edges inverted on right side. sharp, edges inverted on right side. (2) Penetrating stab wound on left hypochondriac region, above the level of umbilicus region, 5 cms away from umbilicus left side, slightly oblique, incised, wedge shaped, omentum protruding through wound. Length 4 cms, breadth 2 cms, depth 3 cms. Direction backward. Margins of the wound are sharp and inverted. 10. He also found following corresponding internal injuries on the dead body: (1) Penetrating stab wound on right side of chest, incised wound wedge shape, near right sternal border, vertical direction, 7 cms above nipple level, length of the injury was 6 cms and breadth 3 cms in midline, depth of injury was 5 cms. Cut end of the rib were seen through the wound. Direction of the wound was downward and backward. Margins of the wound were sharp edges inverted on right side ---- Cut end of second and third ribs, near costocondral junction, sharp incised. Pleaura incised wound 5 cms. Pleural cavity on right side filled with 500 ml. blood. (2) Right lung, wedge shaped, penetrating incised stab wound, on right middle lobe, 3 cms. in length and 2 cms. Deep. Injury No.2 - Penetrating stab wound on left hypochondrial region, above the level of umbilicus region, 5 cms away the level of umbilicus left side, slightly oblique, incised, wedge shaped, omentum protruding through wound Length 4 cms., breadth 2 cms., depth 3 cms. Direction backward Margins of the wound are sharp and inverted – Peritoneum – incised wound oblique 3 cms. in length. Peritoneum cavity filled with blood about 300 CC., in left paracolic gutter. Small intestine – (1) Incised wound 3 cms. in length. (2) Incised wound 3.1/2 cms. In length. (3) Incised wound in masantry 4 cms. in length. (4) Incised wound in masantry two in number 2 cms. each. blood in paracolic gutter. 11. PW-5/Dr. Chandrashekhar Karanjkar has deposed that the death of deceased-Tanaji is homicidal. He has deposed that the cause of death of the deceased is hemorrhagic shock due to injury to lung and intestine and due to penetrating stab injury. He has also stated that the injuries found on the dead body of deceased-Tanaji were possible due to the knife (Article 5). 12. He has deposed that the cause of death of the deceased is hemorrhagic shock due to injury to lung and intestine and due to penetrating stab injury. He has also stated that the injuries found on the dead body of deceased-Tanaji were possible due to the knife (Article 5). 12. PW-6/Dattatraya Raghunath Kale is the Investigating Officer. He has summarized the process of investigation. 13. Thus, the incident-in-question is witnessed by PW-1/Sarika, who is a natural witness. Evidence of PW-1/Sarika is corroborated by evidence of PW-2/Sakharam Shelatkar. The ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are further corroborated by evidence of PW-5/Dr.Chandrashekhar Karanjkar. The chemical analysis report shows that the blood of the deceased was of ‘A’ group and blood of the appellant/accused was of ‘AB’ group. The chemical analysis reports (Exhibit 29, 30 and 31) show that frstly the blood group of deceased- Tanaji was ‘A’ and that of appellant/accused was ‘AB’. It further shows that the knife (Article 5) was blood stained with the ‘A’ blood group. It also shows that the clothes (Articles 5 and 6) i.e. the T-shirt and full pant of the appellant/accused were having blood stained of ‘A’ blood group. 14. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved that the present appellant/accused has committed murder of the deceased-Tanaji. 15. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The appeal has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 16. At this stage, Ms. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused submits that at present the appellant/accused is more than 70 years of age. He is suffering from diabetes and because of that, his both legs are required to be amputed. Hence, she requests to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to any other lesser punishment. 17. In the light of the fact that the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, we cannot reduce his sentence from life imprisonment to any other lesser punishment. Hence, she requests to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to any other lesser punishment. 17. In the light of the fact that the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, we cannot reduce his sentence from life imprisonment to any other lesser punishment. Suffice it to direct the Jail Authority, where the appellant/accused is lodged, shall give proper medical treatment to the appellant/accused, as and when required.